<p>So USC has surpassed UCLA in the US News and World Report rankings for the first time in history and USC is only one notch behind UCBerkeley.</p>
<p>Is this lost footage a result of the economy?
Has UCLA lost quality instructors due to cutbacks?
Does anyone have an idea why UCLA lost grounding considering that they were supposed to become more exclusive this year? </p>
<p>any explanation would be helpful</p>
<p>Because it’s a public school and the economy/funding isn’t good. Berkeley went down too.</p>
<p>Indirectly yes. I think many people saw the massive tuition hikes and resulting protests, missed days of class, and seemingly utter chaos in a negative light.</p>
<p>its bothering me that USC is on top. My cousin went to SC and a good buddy of mine went to SC too. I on the other hand am going to be a Bruin so there is this friendly competition going on there.</p>
<p>anyways what do they use to calculate such things? USC is not a better school than UCLA. i refuse to believe that. It irks me to my bones to see such nonsense on such a respectable place such as USNEWS.</p>
<p>we as Bruins must reclaim top spot! if only it were up to the students! Burn Troy burn! I am Achilles, slayer of Troy!</p>
<p>^ Didn’t Achilles die before the battle was won?</p>
<p>yes, but he took down Hector and countless sons of Phrygian mothers</p>
<p>USC is actually spending enormous amounts of money to become a truly elite national university. Obviously, the UC system is floundering. I think the problem with the UC system isn’t that they had a tough year, it’s that there is no solution in sight. As long as the state of California has funding issues, the UC schools will continue to lose faculty to places like Texas.</p>
<p>The rankings are also not objective and when comparing schoools 10 or 15 spots apart completely worthless (in my opinion).</p>
<p>Be honest, you Bruins are a just a little upset that USC is now better at sports and “perceived” in a ranking as a stronger academic insitution. I am not partial to either school, but in the next five years USC is going to be considered up there with Northwestern/Rice/Vandy as one of the top non-Ivy large schools in the country.</p>
<p>USC is also bringing in tons of money from other countries for its engineering programs. Money talks</p>
<p>its sickening. back in the ‘dark ages’ my professor at city college (who works for USC as well) used to tell us that the kids felt entitled to good grades because of how much their parents donates to the school. can you imagine a little twerp demanding an A from you just because his daddy donated a huge sum of money? money is not everything. i still believe UCLA has the best quality education. there is no way we let go of that much talent from the faculty to drop below USC. i think USnews was bought of by a USC alumni or alumni group.</p>
<p>^ I don’t remember hearing US News was sold. Also, I don’t think any school in the top 25 will give A’s based on family donations. Acceptances maybe, but not grades.</p>
<p>U$C does… and will continue to give A to rich kids who don’t deserve the grade. </p>
<p>My supervisor’s professor (who no longer teaches at U$C) was pressured by department head to give as many A’s as possible because they pay a lot of money to go to U$C.</p>
<p>^ How long ago was this?</p>
<p>UCLA doesn’t “keep dropping” in rankings. We’ve been ~25 for 10+ years. Actually, last year was the first time in a decade we were even 24.</p>
<p>
One of the statistics that USN&WR uses in its rankings is “alumni giving rate”. USC regularly blows away UCLA in this regard. I don’t have the 2010 numbers, but in the 2008 edition, USC was ranked #15 nationally for alumni giving, and UCLA was #117 (tied with Berkeley). Maybe someone can post the 2010 numbers; I’ll bet that they show a similar discrepancy.</p>
<p>Now, it’s true that this particular stat only accounts for a small percentage (5%) of the total USN&WR score. But it’s significant because it shows that USC has been much more successful at developing an “alumni culture” that includes annual financial contributions to the school. </p>
<p>If you want to build and sustain a successful school, you need generous and stable levels of funding. For the foreseeable future, USC looks to be better positioned in this regard than Berkeley or UCLA. If the UC grads want their schools to stay competitive, then they need to get in the habit of donating money – and not just via state taxes, because state taxes aren’t enough. </p>
<p>It may seem painful to first pay taxes, and then write a second check directly to your school. But then again, that’s exactly what the Stanford and USC grads do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>some ridiculous abstract methodology…monkeys playing darts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No it is not better than UCLA. IT IS THE SAME ****. Honestly, there won’t be much, if any, difference in the quality of undergraduate education between the two. Get over it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve been here four years and I don’t see any difference on how things are done here. This includes the quality of teaching or the amount of research opportunities. The only things that have changed are the rise in fees and tuition. The rise in cost is bringing it closer to the USC cost so that the “most bang for your buck” idea goes out the window because nothing is improving.</p>
<p>Seriously people, get over it and enjoy your college experience! The majority of the student body don’t give a crap about rankings. It’s only a small group of people that actually take those rankings seriously. Oh noes!! Caltech surpassed MIT!! Now I will have an inferior education. How will I get a job! etc.</p>
<p>US News is rigged to favor private schools. As time passes, you will see public schools drop as private schools rise to the top. Also, a USC alumni does not own US News, A UPenn alumni does.</p>
<p>Now I’m going to worry. Hope my sons get a good education at UCLA. Maybe we should have sent them to private school and paid the $50k. What have we done? I think UCLA should go private and admit wealthier students and therefore the parents will give more money to UCLA.</p>
<p>collegemom: Why? UCLA is a public institution, meant for the public. Switching to private status and aiming for rich students sort of defeats the whole purpose and changes the university entirely. If you really want your kid in a private school, then go for it.</p>
<p>I guess I should be proud that my daughter was accepted to USC for this year then. Too bad we couldn’t afford it! ;)</p>
<p>Quote:</p>
<p>**USC is actually spending enormous amounts of money to become a truly elite national university. Obviously, the UC system is floundering. I think the problem with the UC system isn’t that they had a tough year, it’s that there is no solution in sight. As long as the state of California has funding issues, the UC schools will continue to lose faculty to places like Texas.</p>
<p>The rankings are also not objective and when comparing schoools 10 or 15 spots apart completely worthless (in my opinion).</p>
<p>Be honest, you Bruins are a just a little upset that USC is now better at sports and “perceived” in a ranking as a stronger academic insitution. I am not partial to either school, but in the next five years USC is going to be considered up there with Northwestern/Rice/Vandy as one of the top non-Ivy large schools in the country. **</p>
<p>i dont care what the ranking says 
UCLA is way much more worth the money to attend than USC :P. ^^</p>